nav-left cat-right

Domestic energy goes beyond oil, gas

Domestic energy goes beyond oil, gas

I respond to the March 3 letter “Energy policy must benefit Ohio business” from Lyn Bliss, president of the Ohio Federation of Republican Women, (ed – added below) which mentioned a simplified tax code and green energy. The federal government says there were 3.4 million green jobs created in 2011, according to the latest estimates, while a national oil and gas trade group says there were 2.59 million oil and gas jobs created.

The latest freeze on energy-efficiency standards ignores Ohio businesses in the renewable-energy sector, and their economic benefits.

I am unclear whether Bliss is saying there should be no subsidies for energy production, or subsidies only for fossil fuels. Meaningful tax reform would shift fossil-fuel subsidies to renewable-energy subsidies. This would provide a direct economic benefit to many more small businesses in Ohio.

Bliss wrote, “If the Democrats had their way, they would likely snuff out domestic energy in America through punitive taxes.” So if I have solar panels, I am a domestic-energy producer. Does the writer support domestic-energy production or not?

Finally, many conservative, independent and progressive citizens support energy production from cleaner, renewable, American sources. Major Ohio universities and the Department of Defense, among others, are already pursuing green-energy initiatives precisely because they are reasonable, sustainable and an economically prudent investment.

So unlike what the writer suggested, energy policy that supports the renewable-energy sector does benefit Ohio business. It also benefits all Ohioans by producing energy without the hidden tax of dirty air, something the writer failed to mention.





Thank you. Bliss says she’s president of the Ohio Federation of Republican Women. Another Republican, President Lincoln, founded the National Academy of Sciences 121 years ago this month so there would be an expert advisory body on science. President George W Bush’s science spokesman called the NAS “the gold standard for objective scientific review.” The NAS issued an urgent call for national leaders to get cuts in carbon emissions clear back in 2005. Bush’s EPA chief, former RNC chair Christine Todd Willilams, urged Congress last year to support exectuive action to cut carbon pollution, as did three other EPA chiefs who served both Bushes, Nixon and Reagan. Given the consensus science and given the risks, for someone like Bliss to attack officials for heeding urgent warnings from bodies like the NAS couldnt be more sick.

2015-03-15 14:23:40.0



The original letter to the  editor:

Energy policy must benefit Ohio business

Tuesday March 3, 2015 5:08 AM

Democrats in Washington are stepping up their push for unreasonable green-energy initiatives and their attacks on domestic energy producers.

The Ohio Federation of Republican Women has passed a resolution regarding domestic-energy resources stating, “Lawmakers in Ohio and on Capitol Hill must pursue tax, regulatory and trade policy that encourages growth, avoids punitive and increased economic burden, streamlines permitting and enables fruitful international exports”; and further, “effective policymaking will avoid rhetoric and talking points and focus instead on what is best for Ohio.”

It is my opinion that we need a simplified, uniform tax code. If the Democrats had their way, they would likely snuff out domestic energy in America through punitive taxes.

With the president’s veto of the Keystone XL pipeline, and former Gov. Ted Strickland threatening to bring his failed policies back to Ohio, the fight for tax reform that promotes job growth and vibrant domestic-energy sector must continue.

I applaud Sen. Rob Portman’s hard work toward meaningful tax reform.


President, Ohio Federation of Republican Women




Lyn, you come off as a blindered sort to me. There’s a real worldwide conundrum of global warming occurring which is traceable to human emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily from burning of fossil fuels. Here’s some advice: talk to some atmospheric scientists about global warming, and then urge your fellow Republicans to offer realistic measures to do something about it, instead of promote greater use of fossil fuels.

2015-03-03 12:12:21.0



Michael Hamill, if you’d like to do something about Global Warming maybe you can volunteer to shovel all the Global Warming off of your neighbor’s driveway or help them with their home heating bills from all the Global Warming we had this winter. All the evidence of man caused Global Warming/Climate Change/Climate Disruption/Whatever comes from data that has been manipulated and massaged so much that it bears no resemblance to the original hard data that was gathered. This data had to be manipulated and massaged so that the climate models that the so called “scientists” (and I use that term loosely) that are promoting man caused climate change are using will come to the preconceived results that they wanted. The e-mails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit demonstrated how far these climate “scientists” would go to attempt to prove man caused climate change and now we’re hearing that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies has been caught AGAIN changing past data from global temperature sensors in an attempt to show a warming trend that did not happen. Satellite data over the last two decades show no appreciable warming of the Earth and in fact show a slight cooling trend. None of this matters to you of course since you take reports like those from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as gospel even though those reports discounted all of the NATURAL causes for global climate change, like the greatest source of global temperature change – the SUN, and concentrated solely on carbon dioxide levels. Add to all this that the climate change “scientists” refuse to have their climate models peer reviewed because they know full well that those models will become epic failures when they are scrutinized by unbiased and neutral scientists. The more time that goes by the more unsupportable the position of the disciples of the Church of Global Warming becomes.

2015-03-03 12:44:17.0



Last week the American Energy Innovation Council urged that the U.S. government triple its current outlays for basic energy research. Council members include Microsoft founder Bill Gates. Addressing global warming was one (but not the primary) reason the Council took that position. Mr. Gates is a lot smarter than I am, but according to some of the posters here, we’re both being snookered by global warming hoaxers.

2015-03-03 18:07:08.0


A reply to dawn’s letter:

Energy fix doesn’t lie in green dreams

Saturday March 21, 2015 5:00 AM

I respond to the Sunday letter “ Domestic energy goes beyond oil, gas,” from Dawn Busalacchi, who supports developing green energy and favors further government support, saying its production employs millions of people and is reasonable, sustainable and an economically prudent investment.

I think that if all that were true, there would be no need for continued government support, as private investors would rush to cash in. The several large-scale bankruptcies of companies in the green-energy field, in spite of tremendous government subsidies, shows that it decidedly is not.

As for the number of people employed in producing green energy, that bit of minutia is quite unimportant to most people. Of much greater interest would be the number of jobs created because of the presence of economical, dependable energy.

We need our energy sources to be reliable. It certainly helps us all if energy is also economical. Reliable energy that drains one’s pocketbook just to keep warm doesn’t make anybody happy and certainly kills jobs.

Beyond that, energy production should not foul our air and water. For most of us, it’s highly desirable that buying energy not enrich nations that hate us, so we should be trying as much as possible to be a self-sufficient nation. To me, this points toward nuclear power, but while some are entirely comfortable with the idea, others are ready to throw bricks whenever the subject is mentioned.

We need an honest discussion of our energy needs and resources. We are enjoying quite a boom in gas and oil production because of new drilling techniques and the opening of new fields. These should be fully utilized while research continues to find ways to make other forms of energy useful.

The total cost of wind and solar power are still extremely high, especially when the cost of the mandatory backup systems is included, while they remain as fickle as the breeze. If battery storage ever reaches the stage where the intermittent power they produce can be economically integrated into our systems, they may yet become useful to the general public.

As of now, they remain a very costly experiment, useful to their producers as long as the government subsidies continue.





What Darryl missed is we don’t have to have all-night, windless day energy from solar and wind power. All we need is to use those sources for the 50% of the time they will work and we can cut fossil fuel use 50%. That doubles the amount of remaining fossil fuels our grandkids will have. Let’s do everything possible to save our petroleum for the 120 priceless plastic things Ralph wants us to be able make ad buy.

2015-03-21 08:10:34.0



Darryl seems oblivious to the massive subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry. If we eliminated all subsidies and made each fuel reflect its true cost, he would be shocked. In fact wind energy is now quite competitive with the artificially low coal costs. And green energy investments by the fed’s have now payed off overall so can we finally put Solyndra to rest? Renewables are the only real energy growth we have and more can be done even before needed energy storage technology. As for nuclear, as Darryl says, if it made sense private equity would be all over it.

2015-03-21 09:19:59.0



No, Mr Heistand. Ramping up clean, renewable solar and wind power doesnt mean we’ll freeze to death in the dark. And we’re not going to keep ignoring the most respected scientific bodies in the world. Transtioning off of fossil fuels for electric power is the single most effective thing we can do to cut carbon pollution, and we’re going to cut carbon pollution, because any other course would be morally unthinkable.

2015-03-21 11:10:42.0



And the cost of PV solar is far more competitive than your letter would indicate. Your letter also omits to mention the very real subsidies enjoyed by the fossil fuel industry — the largest subsidy of all being their ability to pass off the enormous health and environmental damage from their product to society as a whole.

2015-03-21 11:14:26.0



Reliable energy source is key. Sometimes the government needs to lead (finance?) the way, as old habits are hard to break. Single sources of anything, including energy, are risky. We need to seriously diversify our energy.

2015-03-21 23:46:36.0


We will add additional responses when available and appropriate. Many will not be included.

Add your comments and write to The Columbus Dispatch.




The Dispatch welcomes letters to the editor from readers. Typed letters of 200 words or fewer are preferred; all might be edited. Each letter must include name, home address and daytime phone number. also posts letters that don’t make it to print in The Dispatch.



Use our Letters Contact Form to send your letter to the editor. 
(No attachments, please)


Letters to the Editor 
The Dispatch 
34 S. 3rd St. 
Columbus, OH. 43215



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *